Trustees Absent

Item 1 Call to Order

Chair Taylor called the meeting to order. A quorum of trustees was present and the meeting was ready to proceed with business.

Item 2 Approval of the Minutes (February 8, 2007 and September 17, 2007)

Chair Taylor presented the minutes of the February 8, 2007 workshop and the September 17, 2007 retreat for approval, whereupon a MOTION was duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted. The minutes were approved as presented.

Item 3 Chair’s Report

Chair Taylor reviewed the agenda and welcomed everyone to the workshop.

Item 3 Forward by Design

President Delaney spoke briefly about the Forward by Design proposal and indicated that the Chancellor was asking to approve compacts with each university. These compacts would define their distinctive mission based on core institutional strengths and statewide workforce needs. He asked Provost Workman to review highlights of this proposal.

Provost Workman spoke about the proposal, including the impact on the upcoming Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) report. Trustees were directed to review a chart (included in the meeting materials) which simplified the proposal and outlined the Chancellor’s recommendations. It was noted that the Chancellor was looking for input from boards of trustees, specifically in regards to quality, baccalaureate degree production and predictable funding.

Dialogue continued on other aspects of the Forward by Design proposal including the length of time it takes to earn a degree and excess hours, including penalties and/or consequences. Topics discussed included differential tuition and post-baccalaureate course work. It was noted that careful consideration needed to be given to differential tuition and unforeseen consequences. It was also noted that UNF might be mindful of certain niches for post-baccalaureate programs.

This conversation then focused on the global market for education. Trustees were encouraged to provide thoughts on key issues regarding the Forward by Design proposal and the role this proposal might play in improving quality.

Discussion on this item continued with an understanding that the Forward by Design proposal would form the framework for the Board of Governors (BOG). It was noted that UNF’s compact with the BOG would be critical to the institution’s vision and future.

Trustees discussed the difference between the mission and vision statements clarifying that the mission statement defined what was currently being carried out by the University and the vision statement described the future of the University.

Provost Workman reported on the Provost’s Task Force, stating that efforts were on track to complete the mission and vision statements within the academic year. He specified that the mission statement would dictate certain goals that would in turn unpack the vision statement.

Dialogue continued addressing general criteria for proposing new graduate degree programs. Consensus was that all programs should speak to accountability, relevance and excellence. Clarity was provided on quality, with trustees discussing the process used to review programs.

This discussion was concluded by noting that the University needed to make the BOG’s compact work with the University’s vision and mission statements, with the hope of bringing these together. Trustees agreed that it was essential that the Board be engaged and informed in the process as it moved forward.

Item 4 SACS Accreditation

Trustees were provided with an overview of core requirements and comprehensive standards for SACS accreditation, including highlights for criteria which directly involved Board governance.

Administration introduced UNF’s proposed topic for the Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP), which was Community-Based Transformational Learning. The topic was chosen from proposals received from the campus-wide community.

It was specified that Community-Based Transformational Learning was selected because of the benefits to the institution, specifically in consolidating and managing civic and community activity. It was also noted that this proposal could lead to the University gaining specialized Carnige classification.

This discussion was concluded with trustees being encouraged to provide feedback to the proposed QEP topic.

Item 5 NCAA Transition Process

Administration provided an update on the status of preparations for NCAA Division I certification. It was noted that a steering committee was currently engaged in a self-study process and would present the Board with a draft report before May 2008.

This discussion was concluded by trustees acknowledging that the move to Division 1 was a good decision, evidenced by the dramatic increase in attendance at Athletics events.